and also an undertaking that he shall submit the validity certificate within a period of six months from the date of declaration of the elections. This rule makes it clear that if the candidate is not able to furnish true copy of the application, he should at least submit on oath proof of having made such an application to the Scrutiny Committee. In the instant case, the application was indeed made, but it was returned for removal of the deficiencies on 5/1/2017. With the return of the application, its status as a pending application ceased, and it could be said to be revived only when the application or the proposal was resubmitted after removal of the deficiencies. In the instant case, such resubmission has been made on 1/2/2017, the day on which the nomination form was submitted. But, on that date, no receipt showing such resubmission of the proposal was filed by the petitioner. Filing of such proof was necessary in view of the mandatory requirement of Rule 12-A of the Act of 1961. It is submitted by the petitioner that, the Returning Officer told him that it was not necessary for him to submit a fresh receipt and it would suffice if he filed along with the nomination paper the original receipt. I must say, the petitioner ought to have understood that when the proposal itself was returned to him and it was required to be resubmitted, the pendency of the proposal could not be said to have been revived till the time the proposal was resubmitted and, therefore, it was also necessary for him to
